House of Assembly: Vol12 - TUESDAY 12 FEBRUARY 1929

TUESDAY, 12th FEBRUARY, 1929. Mr. SPEAKER took the Chair at 2.17 p.m. QUESTIONS. Old Age Pensions. I. Dr. STALS

asked the Minister of Finance:

  1. (1) How many applications for pensions under the Old Age Pension Act of 1928 were granted up to the 31st December, 1928;
  2. (2) what were the numbers thus granted for the respective Provinces;
  3. (3) how many of the approved applicants were above 75 years of age; and,
  4. (4) what was the total liability incurred under the above Act up to the 31st December, 1928?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS (for the Minister of Finance):
  1. (1) 24,884.
  2. (2) Cape, 14,980; Natal, 1,285; Orange Free State, 2,751; Transvaal, 5,868; Total, 24,884.
  3. (3) Pensions have not been grouped according to age yet and it is not possible to furnish the desired information at present.
  4. (4) £662,077 per annum.
Hospital at Groote Schuur. II. Sir DRUMMOND CHAPLIN

asked the Minister of Public Works:

  1. (1) What amount of money has been spent on preparing the site for the hospital at Groote Schuur;
  2. (2) what is the estimated expenditure still to be incurred on (a) the site, (b) the building; and
  3. (3) whether the Minister has approved or considered any plans for the building?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS:

(1), (2) and (3). This matter falls exclusively within the purview of the Administrator of the Cape Province, to whom I must refer the hon. member.

†Sir DRUMMOND CHAPLIN:

Is the Groote Schuur estate vested in the Government, and, if so, has the Government granted the Administrator permission to erect a hospital on the estate?

†The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS:

Will the hon. member put the question on paper?

Export Wines. III. Mr. HEATLIE

asked the Minister of Agriculture:

  1. (1) Whether he is prepared to carry out the recommendation of the committee appointed by him to enquire into the export wine trade of the Union of South Africa that the Government of the Union should vote £2,500 for the purpose of advertising South African wines on a large scale in the United Kingdom;
  2. (2) whether he will make provision in this year’s Estimates for the said sum of £2,500; and
  3. (3) whether, if he has not yet come to a decision on the matter, he will give it his favourable consideration?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

(1) (2) and (3). The recommendation referred to has received my consideration, but I regret that I can hold out no hope that effect will be given thereto. If financial assistance towards the cost of advertising wines should be given, the Government will have to provide similar aid in respect of other produce and the expenditure would be very considerable. I may mention that in the case of deciduous fruit, the growers—through the fruit exchange—have decided to raise the necessary funds for advertising by means of a levy on fruit exported.

Posts: Wireless and Cables. IV. Mr. OOST

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

  1. (1) Whether he is in a position to state whether the House of Lords in England has finally passed legislation approving of the amalgamation of the Wireless Telegraph Company of South Africa, Ltd., with certain cable companies, whereby the telegraph monopoly formerly held by the cable companies will practically be reestablished;
  2. (2) whether he is aware of the replies given to questions on this matter during the last session, in which it was stated that the South African Government would be no party to such a transaction, as it was in conflict with the agreement between the abovenamed company and the Government;
  3. (3) whether the Government has been consulted in this matter and whether it has agreed to this amalgamation;
  4. (4) if the Government has not agreed to this amalgamation, what steps does it propose to take in case the English legislation quoted above is placed before it as a fait accompli; and
  5. (5) whether, if such amalgamation is eventually established, the Government will take into favourable consideration an application or applications from rival wireless concerns to establish independent wireless communication with the outside world?
The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

I think it will be better if I make a full statement instead of attempting to answer the hon. member’s points individually, as the latter course would probably not convey a clear understanding of the position. An amalgamation between the Eastern Telegraph Company (i.e., the cable company) and Marconi’s Wireless Telegraph Company in England in respect of their communication services has been under consideration for some time and appears likely to take place. No action by the Union Government or the Government of any other dominion or probably even the Government of Great Britain itself could prevent such an arrangement being made between two commercial concerns in England if they wished. The Imperial Wireless and Cables Conference was called largely at the instance of the Governments of Canada and Australia, who, as partners (Great Britain and New Zealand being the other partners) in the ownership of what is known as the Pacific cable, found themselves in the position of losing considerable revenue now that wireless services have been set up between Great Britain and those dominions; and saw the prospect of still further heavy losses in attempting to maintain the cable service in competition against the wireless services which were owned at the dominion end by a company and at the English end by the Post Office in each case. (Here I might mention that as regards the ownership of the wireless service, the position is the same in South Africa.) It was considered necessary to hold a conference to examine the whole position. Although the Union is not so vitally concerned as Canada and Australia, his Majesty’s Government in Great Britain, recognizing her dominion status, invited South Africa (and the other dominions and India) to take part in the Empire Council on the question, and we were represented by the Postmaster-General. All the Governments of the British Commonwealth were agreed that the cable system must be maintained because of its certainty and secrecy, as well as the wireless, and the problem before the conference was to devise a scheme which would secure to all portions of the British commonwealth the benefits of both these systems of communication between the various dominions and the rest of the world, and all future developments and improvements of them, at the cheapest possible rates. The conference, whose functions of course were simply to make recommendations, drew up a report which was published in the South African Press a few months ago. The main proposal was that the inter-empire cable and wireless service should be operated in Great Britain by a single company under conditions which were designed to secure definite Government control of its policy, finances and rates of charge to the public; and although this company will operate in England, the scheme provides for all the dominion Governments to have a voice in its control through representation on a central advisory committee. The conference recommendations have been adopted by his Majesty’s Government in Great Britain and on being asked for their opinion on the general scheme all the dominions have indicated their concurrence in principle, though their freedom is reserved as to whether or not they will adopt a similar arrangement in their own countries. In the Union the question has not so far arisen, but it must be remembered that the wireless service here is conducted by a South African company over which the Government have considerable control by the terms of its licence, and the hon. member may be sure that the Government will not surrender any of the powers they have with reference to the control, in the interests of the Union, of the external telegraph services. The legislation mentioned in paragraph (1) of the question, which has now passed both Houses of the British Parliament and received royal assent, consists only of an enabling Act under which the Government of Great Britain are given power to sell to the proposed new controlled communications company their share in the Pacific cable and other cables at present belonging to the British Government. The Act does not in any way concern South Africa. The constitution and functions of the proposed advisory committee are at present under consideration and here again the courtesy has been extended to all the dominions of being invited to take part, Whatever the ultimate developments may be in this very important question, I do not think that any Government in South Africa would confer on the existing wireless company, or any possible future combined wireless and cable company, the sole monopoly of all foreign wireless communications.

Railways: Motor Competition. V. Dr. D. G. CONRADIE

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours:

  1. (1) Whether he can give the House an estimate of the loss which the Administration weekly suffers through motor competition; and
  2. (2) whether he intends to introduce legislation to restrict unfair motor competition?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS:

As the hon. member is aware, a commission has been appointed by the Government to enquire into, and report upon, the whole question of road motor competition with the Administration’s services. The terms of reference call for report, amongst other matters, upon the measures, if any, which should be adopted in the public interest for the better regulation, co-ordination and control of transportation services.

Posts: Palestine Postage. VI. MR. ALEXANDER

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

  1. (1) Whether at one time the letter postage from every part of the British Empire to Palestine was 3d. per oz.;
  2. (2) whether some time ago the letter postage from Great Britain and Northern Ireland to Palestine was reduced to 1½d. per oz.;
  3. (3) whether at that same time the letter postage from South Africa to Palestine was reduced to 2d. per oz.;
  4. (4) whether the letter postage from South Africa to Palestine has again been increased to 3d. per oz.;
  5. (5) whether the letter postage from South Africa to Egypt has for some time been 2d. per oz.; and
  6. (6) whether, in view of the amount of correspondence between South Africa and Palestine and of the fact that 2d. is the rate of letter postage between South Africa and all parts of the British Empire, it is not possible for the Government to reduce the existing rate of letter postage to Palestine to 2d., having in view the fact that Palestine is under British administration?
The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:
  1. (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) Yes.
  2. (6) The Palestine Administration has intimated that it does not find itself in a position to adopt the reduced imperial rate in respect of letters for the Union of South Africa originating in Palestine, therefore the charge is the ordinary international rate of 3d. per oz. Reciprocally the same rate must apply from this end. I may add, for the hon. member’s information, that this question is still the subject of correspondence between the Union Administration and Palestine.
Railways: Language Tests. VII. Maj. RICHARDS

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours:

  1. (1) How many officials employed on the railways have been passed over for promotion owing to lack of knowledge of Afrikaans;
  2. (2) what is the total amount of increments withheld from officials for the same reason; and
  3. (3) (a) what was the total number of candidates who submitted themselves for language test examination during the year 1928, (i) Afrikaans-speaking, (ii) English-speaking, and (b) how many of these passed in each section?

[The reply to this question is standing over.]

VIII. Mr. SWART

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours:

  1. (1) How many stationmasters of each of the different grades are there in the Orange Free State;
  2. (2) how many in each of these grades are Afrikaans-speaking and how many English-speaking;
  3. (3) how many officials in the Orange Free State have been certified as fit for the position of stationmaster but have not yet been appointed as such;
  4. (4) how many of these mentioned in paragraph (3) are Afrikaans-speaking and how many are English-speaking; and
  5. (5) how many new appointments as stationmasters were made in the Orange Free State from 1924 to 1928, and how many of these are Afrikaans-speaking and how many English-speaking ’
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS:
  1. (1) Special class, 2; 1A, 2; IB, 10; 2nd class, 29; 3rd class, 34; 4th class, 36; total, 113.
  2. (2) Afrikaans as mother tongue, 45; English as mother tongue, 68; bilingual, 107; English only, 6.
  3. (3) 38.
  4. (4) Afrikaans as mother tongue, 27; English as mother tongue, 11. All are bilingual.
  5. (5) 24. Afrikaans as mother tongue, 15; English as mother tongue, 9.
Railways: H. A. Allen. IX. Maj. RICHARDS

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether the Government is prepared to give favourable reconsideration to the case of H. A. Allen, an engine driver of long service, who was retired on a reduced pension although he had contributed to the Superannuation Fund to the fullest extent allowed?

The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS:

Ex-driver Allen received all the benefits to which he was entitled under the laws governing his membership of the superannuation fund, and I know of no special circumstances which would justify the case being re-opened.

Justice: Language Tests. X. Maj. RICHARDS

asked the Minister of Justice:

  1. (1) How many officials employed in the Department of Justice have been passed over for promotion owing to a lack of knowledge of Afrikaans;
  2. (2) how many of these have been curtailed in their emoluments or increments;
  3. (3) what is the total amount withheld under (2);
  4. (4) how many officials have been promoted in the magisterial branch who have failed to pass the civil service lower law examination;
  5. (5) how many officials who have passed the law examination have been superseded by those who have not passed;
  6. (6) what has been the extra cost of the State in providing Zulu interpreters for those officials acting as magistrates and proficient in Afrikaans but ignorant of the native language; and
  7. (7) (a) how many officials acting in the capacity of magistrates in Natal do their own native interpreting, (b) how many of these are bilingual, and (c) what is the saving to the State?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS (for the Minister of Justice):
  1. (1), (2) and (3) It is not possible to ascertain these figures. Each vacancy as it arises is considered on its own merits. The policy of the department and of the Public Service Commission has been to promote bilingual officers to posts requiring bilingual qualifications and to consider the claims of unilingual officers for promotion to posts not requiring that qualification.
  2. (4) The rule which was adopted by the department and the commission many years ago not to promote in the magisterial branch any officer from the second to the first clerical grade, who has not passed the law examination, has in no instance been departed from. There is a small number of first grade clerical posts in the magisterial branch, for revenue and native affairs work, for which the law examination is not insisted upon and officers have been promoted thereto who have not passed the law examination. Their number since January, 1925, is approximately thirteen.
  3. (5) I know of no such cases.
  4. (6) I do not think that any extra cost has been incurred.
  5. (7) (a) and (b) I can only say that of the 55 magistrates in Natal, 28 are recorded to be Zulu linguists and 24 bilingual; (c) is not understood.
Maj. RICHARDS:

If I can bring the Minister names of men passed over, will be give it serious consideration?

Railways: Six-Wheeled Road Vehicles. XI. Mr. MARWICK

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours:

  1. (1) How many six-wheeled road vehicles are being used by the Railway Administration in Port Shepstone, Harding and Kokstad districts;
  2. (2) what hours of labour are being worked by drivers of the vehicles referred to, and what is their rate of pay;
  3. (3) how many drivers left the service between 1st January, 1928, and 31st December, 1928; and
  4. (4) whether any of the vehicles were idle during the period mentioned in (3), and, if so, for how many days?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS:
  1. (1) Port Shepstone district, 3; Harding district, nil; Kokstad district, 7.
  2. (2) Hours of labour. Scheduled trip times for services, including booking on and off, are: Port Shepstone district, 10 hours 15 minutes; Kokstad district, 10 hours, 10 minutes. During December these times were exceeded in consequence of weather conditions, and, in the case of the Port Shepstone services, heavy holiday traffic. The average daily trip during that month involved, on the Port Shepstone services, duty of 13 hours 34 minutes, and, on the Kokstad services, 12 hours 33 minutes. Rates of pay: Port Shepstone district, 2 at £21 per month, 1 at £17 per month: Kokstad district, 1 at £23 per month, 1 at £22 per month, 1 at £21 per month, 1 at £18 per month, 2 at £17 per month, 2 at £15 per month, plus the usual privileges.
  3. (3) Port Shepstone, Nil; Kokstad, 2 dismissed. 3 resigned.
  4. (4) Excluding time for weekly garage requirements and general repair work: Port Shepstone district, nil; Kokstad district, 12 days.
Mr. REYBURN:

Is any overtime paid to these drivers?

The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS:

No. I think it is a monthly appointment.

†Mr. MARWICK:

Can the Minister tell us why so large a proportion of these men have resigned?

The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS:

I am afraid I have not the information.

L. P. van Zyl Ham. XII. Mr. MARWICK

asked the Minister of the Interior:

  1. (1) Whether Mr. L. P. van Zyl Ham, Secretary for Mines and Industries, is the same gentleman who held the post of magistrate of Wakkerstroom during the parliamentary election in that constituency in March, 1924; if so,
  2. (2) what was the grade of salary attached to the post held by him at that time and what is the grade of salary of the post held by him to-day;
  3. (3) on how many occasions has this gentleman received promotion since the advent to power of the present Government to date;
  4. (4) what grade of salary was attached to each post to which he was promoted, and how many officials senior to him in the public service were superseded at each of his successive promotions;
  5. (5) what are the special qualifications entitling him to the rapid promotion he has received over the hundreds of public servants who were his senior in rank and salary in 1924; and
  6. (6) whether he holds a diploma in mining engineering, or in any other technical subject, which justified his selection for the important post now held by him?
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:
  1. (1) Yes.
  2. (2) Second grade magistrate graded on the scale £575-25-700. The post now held by him is graded on the scale £1,400-40-1,600.
  3. (3) Three.
  4. (4) (a) £800-30-930 as public service inspector; (h) £950-30-1,100 as secretary, Public Service Commission; (c) £1,400-40-1.600 as secretary for Mines and Industries. The number of officers in the public service senior to Mr. Ham in respect of each promotion was (a) 145, (b) 86 and (c) 83 respectively.
  5. (5) He was selected for promotion on each occasion on the ground that he was deemed to possess qualifications which were regarded as essential to the due and efficient performance of the duties attaching to the particular post.
  6. (6) No.
Mr. DUNCAN:

Was he recommended by the Public Service Commission, or was his name sent to the Public Service Commission with the request that his name should be recommended? Was this gentleman recommended on their own initiative?

†The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Let me just say that these promotions have not taken place in my department, except in the first instance, when he was appointed as public service inspector. As far as this is concerned, the initiative came from the Public Service Commission. As far as the other departments are concerned, the reply can be given only by the Ministers concerned.

†Mr. SPEAKER:

I think if questions are to be directed to any other Minister they had better be put on the paper.

†Mr. ANDERSON:

Why should Mr. Nixon be superseded, who is bilingual and who acted for a long time as Secretary for Mines?

†Mr. SPEAKER:

That is also a question to be put to the Minister of Mines and Industries, and the hon. member had better put it on the paper.

†Mr. MARWICK:

May I ask the Minister whether the qualifications of Mr. Nixon were not equal to those of Mr. van Zyl Ham, and, if so, all things being equal, did not Mr. van Zyl Ham procure the appointment through being a Nationalist?

†Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member must not make insinuations in his question. He ought to put it on the paper and ask the Minister of Mines and Industries.

†Mr. MARWICK:

May I ask the Minister of the Interior if he has withdrawn his dictum of 8th March, 1927, that members of the public service belonging to the Sons of England Society must resign or remove their society out of the political arena or become subject to a charge of serious misconduct?

Justice: Twelve Native Boys Arrested. XIII. Mr. ALEXANDER

asked the Minister of Justice:

  1. (1) Whether he will cause enquiries to be made into the circumstances under which twelve little native boys were arrested and found guilty by Mr. C. H. Backeberg in the magistrate’s court, Johannesburg, of the offence of soliciting the favour of carrying passengers’ luggage at the railway-station without the authority of the Railway Administration and were sentenced to pay a fine of £1 each or to go to gaol for 10 days;
  2. (2) whether they all went to gaol, being unable to pay the fine;
  3. (3) what are the ages of the boys in question;
  4. (4) why were their cases not tried by the juvenile court; and
  5. (5) whether instructions will be given that in cases of this kind, and similar cases where juveniles are concerned, the cases will be heard by the juvenile court?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS (for the Minister of Justice):
  1. (1) Enquiry has been made from which it appears that complaints had been made by passengers that natives at the railway station soliciting for employment to carry luggage were a nuisance and were interfering with them. The natives were kept under observation for some time and on previous occasions were driven away from the station premises. Eventually the accused were surrounded and arrested on the station premises and on conviction were sentenced to pay a fine of £1 each or in default of payment to be imprisoned for ten days.
  2. (2) All the accused went to gaol.
  3. (3) Five of the accused were aged 18 years; five were 19; one was 20 and one 21 years.
  4. (4) The accused, not being juveniles, were not tried at the juvenile court.
  5. (5) No instructions, therefore, are necessary.
Police Uniforms. XIV. Mr. ALEXANDER

asked the Minister of Justice:

  1. (1) Whether members of the foot police are expected to wear the same uniforms in summer and winter;
  2. (2) whether these consist (a) of blue serge uniforms, which are belted in and the coats of which are buttoned up to the chin, and (b) of heavy black boots and helmets;
  3. (3) whether their duties in many cases necessitate their walking about the streets and pavements almost continuously for eight hours a day;
  4. (4) whether the Government will take into consideration the advisability of issuing white summer uniforms and helmets to the foot police for use in the summer months; and
  5. (5) whether any protection against the sun or rain is provided for policemen on point duty, and, if not, whether the Government will take into consideration the advisability of providing them with an umbrella and stand for protection against the sun and the rain?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS (for the Minister of Justice):
  1. (1) Yes.
  2. (2) Yes.
  3. (3) Yes.
  4. (4) The Government is at present experimenting with mohair, which it is hoped may be a satisfactory solution.
  5. (5) In many places where space permits, umbrellas have already been fixed. So far as is practicable this is being done in such places where point duty is more or less continuous.
Posts: Telegraphs, Temporary Men on. XV. Mr. ALEXANDER

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

  1. (1) Whether there are men on the temporary staff of the central telegraph office at Bloemfontein drawing a salary of 12s. 6d. a day;
  2. (2) how many men draw this salary, and for how long have they been drawing it;
  3. (3) whether they have been recommended for an increase by the divisional controller;
  4. (4) whether this recommendation has been carried out and, if not, why not: and
  5. (5) whether these men are doing exactly the same duties as others on the permanent staff with salaries of £450 and over per annum?
The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:
  1. (1) Yes.
  2. (2) Two, from 4th June, 1926, and 26th July, 1926.
  3. (3) Yes.
  4. (4) No, because it has been clearly laid down by the Public Service Commission that 12s. 6d. per day is the highest pay that can be allowed temporary assistants.
  5. (5) No.
Railways: Dock Labour. XVI. Mr. ALEXANDER

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours:

  1. (1) Whether there are men employed in his department at the docks who are drawing small pensions varying from £3 to £5 a month;
  2. (2) whether they begin as labourers at 5s. 6d. a day, and whether some have worked their way up in grade and earn 8s. 6d. a day sometimes;
  3. (3) whether they get extra for overtime and Sundays;
  4. (4) whether they are married men with wives and families; and
  5. (5) whether it is now proposed to retrench these men, and, if so, whether the Government will take into consideration the advisability of continuing them in their present employment?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS:
  1. (1) There are no men in receipt of pensions who are in regular employment at Table Bay harbour, but it is quite possible that men in receipt of small pensions may be employed in a casual capacity from day to day as the exigencies of the work may require. No records are kept of these men, and their services are only utilized intermittently as and when required.
  2. (2) The rate of pay of men employed in a casual capacity depends entirely on the nature of the work they are required to undertake. Casual labourers are employed at rates of pay ranging from 5s. to 6s. per day. Casual checkers and tally clerks receive a higher rate of pay.
  3. (3) If weekday overtime or Sunday time is performed, it is paid for.
  4. (4) In the case of men employed in a casual capacity, there is no information on record to show whether they are married or otherwise.
  5. (5) There has been no retrenchment amongst the regular staff employed at Table Bay Docks, nor is there any intention of retrenching such employees, but the hon. member will, of course, appreciate that it may be necessary to pay off certain men on completion of the work for which they were engaged.
Public Service: Mines Department Promotions. XVII. Mr. GIOVANETTI

asked the Minister of Mines and Industries:

  1. (1) Whether the public servants who received promotion under the present Government and whose names were recently announced by him were promoted in the ordinary course on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, or whether any such were promoted by the Government without any such recommendation;
  2. (2) whether, if the answer to the latter part of the preceding question be in the affirmative, the Minister will indicate which public servants were promoted by the Government; and
  3. (3) whether the Minister will lay upon the Table the names of persons who were appointed from without the public service to positions within the public service, and the nature of such appointments, during the regime of the present Government?

[The reply to this question is standing over.]

German Favoured-Nation Treaties. XVIII. Mr. NICHOLLS

asked the Minister of Mines and Industries how many favoured-nation treaties have been entered into by Germany with other countries?

[The reply to this question is standing over.]

Indian Land Ownership. XIX. Mr. NEL

asked the Minister of the Interior:

  1. (1) Whether a deputation of Indians was recently received by him; if so,
  2. (2) whether representations were made by them in favour of the amendment of the Transvaal laws respecting occupation and ownership of land by Asiatics in the Transvaal;
  3. (3) whether representations were made to amend the licensing laws in the Transvaal and Natal or in either Province;
  4. (4) whether it is the policy of the Government to grant further concessions to Indians, and, if so, to what extent; and
  5. (5) what steps have been taken under the Union-Indian agreement to grant facilities to Asiatics (a] for technical education, (b) for primary education, (c) for secondary education, and (d) for university education?
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:
  1. (1) Yes.
  2. (2) No.
  3. (3) No.
  4. (4) No.
  5. (5) Under the Union-Indian agreement the Union Government could not and did not make any promise going beyond its constitutional powers and in so far as certain branches of education are not under its control or only indirectly so it could not bind itself to grant facilities in respect of such types of education, (a) Technical education in the larger urban centres is by Act 30 of 1923 placed under the control of autonomous technical colleges. To such of these institutions as do not offer classes for coloured or Indian students, circular letters were sent by the Secretary for Education on the instruction of the Minister drawing attention to the possible needs of these students in their respective areas; (b) and (c) primary and secondary education is a provincial matter, but the attention of provincial authorities in Natal has been directed to the needs of the Indian community in that province by the Minister, as a result of which an enquiry was held and certain steps taken by the Provincial Administration for the improvement and the provision of better facilities for Indian education; (d) university institutions under various Acts of Parliament control admission of their students, but the needs of Indian students have been represented to the council of the South African Native College, Fort Hare, and provision for their admission to this institution has, it is understood, been made.
†Mr. PAPENFUS:

Will the Minister reply to the following question: Where land is held under a servitude, that such land shall not be sold to natives or Asiatics, and that they should not carry on trading on such land. Will the Government give an undertaking that no action shall be taken in derogation of such rights?

†Mr. SPEAKER:

I am afraid that does not arise out of the question, and I think the hon. member should put that on paper.

†Mr. PAPENFUS:

I submit that this question comes under sub-section (3) of the original question.

†Mr. SPEAKER:

I understood the hon. member to refer to a question of servitude on land.

†Mr. PAPENFUS:

I only want to be assured on the point.

†The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I think it is inadvisable that very difficult questions of policy should be dealt with by means of question and answer in this way. It would be better if the hon. member would put this question on paper.

Voters’ Lists. XX. Mr. ROBINSON (for Dr. de Jager)

asked the Minister of the Interior:

  1. (1) When the new parliamentary voters’ lists of the last registration and in accordance with the recent delimitation will be available to the public; and
  2. (2) whether, in view of the new biennial registration which is now commencing, the Minister will give instructions that the lists be completed without delay and made available to the public?
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:
  1. (1) Towards the end of March next, but some of the lists are already available to the public.
  2. (2) As soon as each list is printed, it is made available to the public.
Railways: Congella to Point. XXI. Mr. HENDERSON

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether it is the intention of the Administration to seek parliamentary authority during the present session for the construction of a railway from Congella to the main wharf at the Point, Port Natal?

The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS:

The question of seeking parliamentary authority during the present session is under consideration.

Agricultural School, Barkly West. XXII. Mr. W. B. DE VILLIERS

asked the Minister of Education whether he will, during this session, make provision on the Estimates for an agricultural school for the electoral division of Barkly West, as promised by him?

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION:

Where only grounds and no buildings are available for any proposed new agricultural school the actual establishment of such a school implies that provision must first of all be made on loan estimates. As it is impossible at this stage to state what items will be included in the Loan Estimates of the coming financial year, I regret that I cannot supply the hon. gentleman with any further information.

Justice: Act 5 of 1927. XXIII. Mr. NEL

asked the Minister of Justice:

  1. (1) How many European males and native females have been prosecuted under the provisions of Act No. 5 of 1927;
  2. (2) in how many cases were the accused (a) convicted, (b) discharged;
  3. (3) in how many cases have the public prosecutions been withdrawn on the instructions of the Attorneys-General (a) in Natal, (b) in the Free State, (c) in the Transvaal and (d) in the Cape Province; and
  4. (4) whether the Minister will give particulars of the sentences in each case where the accused have been convicted?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS (for the Minister of Justice):

This information is being collected and a return will in due course be laid on the Table of the House.

Naturalization Costs. XXIV. Mr. ALEXANDER

asked the Minister of the Interior:

  1. (1) Whether, prior to July, 1921, the stamp fee for naturalization certificates amounted to 2s. 6d.;
  2. (2) whether the late Government in July, 1921, increased the fee to £10;
  3. (3) whether in December, 1921, the late Government reduced the fee to £5;
  4. (4) whether the present Government in January, 1925, reduced the fee to £2 10s.;
  5. (5) whether other costs incidental to naturalization amount approximately to £4; and
  6. (6) whether the Government has received representations to bring the fee down to 2s. 6d. again, as it was prior to July, 1921, and whether the Government will take into consideration the advisability of acceding to these representations?
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:
  1. (1) Yes.
  2. (2) Yes.
  3. (3) Yes.
  4. (4) Yes.
  5. (5) Other costs incidental to naturalization amount to £1 14s., but this does not include the cost of advertising in the two newspapers.
  6. (6) Yes, but experience has shown that the large majority of applications involves a considerable amount of administrative action and the fees are considered equitable in the circumstances.
J. D. de Wet as Politician. XXV. Mr. ANDERSON

asked the Minister of Agriculture:

  1. (1) Whether he has received a resolution from the Springbok Flats Farmers’ Association protesting against the action of Mr. J. D. de Wet, extension officer of the Department of Agriculture for the Potgietersrust and Waterberg districts, in becoming a candidate for parliamentary honours at the approaching election;
  2. (2) whether the resolution condemns the prominent participation of Mr. de Wet in political matters; and, if so,
  3. (3) what action the Minister proposes to take in regard to the resolution in question?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:
  1. (1) Yes.
  2. (2) Yes.
  3. (3) I intend acting in accordance with the public service regulations which lay down that if an officer accepts a nomination or requisition as a candidate for election as a member of Parliament, he shall be deemed to have voluntarily resigned from the public service. Inquiry is being made as to whether Mr. de Wet has been nominated or whether he has accepted a requisition as candidate.
†Mr. MARWICK:

Will the Minister consider whether the participation of Mr. de Wet in politics does not call for action under the Public Service Act, and is the Minister prepared to proceed against him?

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

I have never heard that he was acting in such a way.

†Mr. MARWICK:

Is it correct that Mr. de Wet’s removal was demanded by the Springbok Flats Farmers’ Association owing to his participation in politics?

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

The Farmers’ Association asked for his removal.

†Mr. ANDERSON:

Will the Minister give us a definition of what constitutes active participation in politics?

An HON. MEMBER:

Consult a dictionary.

Diamond-Cutting Factories. XXVI. Lt.-Col. N. J. PRETORIUS (for Mr. Buirski)

asked the Minister of Mines and Industries:

  1. (1) How many diamond-cutting factories are there at present in the Union and what is the number of workmen and apprentices in each of these factories respectively;
  2. (2) whether it is a fact that two other diamond-cutting factories will ere long be established at Wynberg, and, if so, how many workmen will be employed and how many apprentices;
  3. (3) whether the Minister is aware that in Amsterdam and Antwerp measures have been taken to keep the number of apprentices below a certain figure in order to prevent, or to assist in preventing, unemployment in this industry; and, if the Minister is thus aware,
  4. (4) what measures the Government of the Union is taking to keep the number of apprentices below a certain figure?

[The reply to this question is standing over.]

Income Tax. XXVII. Lt.-Col. N. J. PRETORIUS (for Mr. Buirski)

asked the Minister of Finance:

  1. (1) What is the amount of income tax received up to the present for the year 1927-’28;
  2. (2) what, according to the returns of income taxpayers, is the total amount to be received;
  3. (3) why has a larger amount not yet been recovered; and
  4. (4) why are measures not taken to recover the total amount before the end of the financial year, viz., the 31st March in each year?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

According to the latest information available the position is: —

  1. (1) £4,042,000 made up as follows: —Normal tax: Mining Companies, £1,976,000; Individuals, £702,000; Other Companies, £837,000; Total £3,515,000. Super Tax, £527,000; Total, £4,042,000.
  2. (2) £6,515,000 (as at present estimated before all returns have been examined) made up as follows: —Normal tax: Mining Companies £1,976,000; Individuals, £1,665,000; Other Companies, £1,440,000; Total, £5,081,000. Super Tax: £1,434,000; Total, £6,515,000.
  3. (3) For one or other of the following reasons: (a) that the tax payable has not yet been determined by assessment; (b) that the amount assessed is not yet due and payable (thirty days are given for payment from the date of the notice of assessment); (c) that, owing to the financial circumstances of the taxpayer, time has had to be given for payment.
  4. (4) It is not practicable to complete the work of assessing the incomes for the twelve months ending the preceding June before the following 31st March. It would require the completion of the work of assessment within five months and would involve the employment of a large staff for that period which would be idle for the rest of the year. The work of assessment and collection is spread over the period of twelve months with the result that the collections in any financial year are equivalent to the yield in respect of a single year of assessment.
Labour Advisory Council.

The MINISTER OF LABOUR replied to Question III, by Mr. Blackwell, standing over from 8th February.

Question:
  1. (1) What has the Labour Advisory Council cost since its inception; and
  2. (2) what has each individual member of the Labour Advisory Council received in fees, allowances and for expenses; and how many meetings, giving dates, has each member attended?
Reply: The MINISTER OF LABOUR:

(1) and (2) The information desired by the hon. member is contained in a return laid on the Table to-day.

Fishing Harbours.

The MINISTER OF MINES AND INDUSTRIES replied to Question XV by Sir Drummond Chaplin, standing over from 5th February.

Question:
  1. (1) What steps have been taken to give effect to the recommendations and suggestions contained in Part I of the Report of the Fishing Harbours Committee relating to (a) Muizenberg, (b) Kalk bay, (c) Simonstown, (d) Buffels Bay, (e) Witsands, (f) Klein Slangkop, and (g) Hout Bay;
  2. (2) what amount of money has been spent on giving effect to the above recommendations and suggestions; and
  3. (3) what further expenditure thereon is contemplated in the near future?
Reply:

(1), (2) and (3): The partially completed report of the Fishing Harbours Committee consists of seven parts covering the years 1926-’28. There will be at least one more part which is expected to be published in about a month’s time. The Government is fully alive to the important possibilities in the development of our fishing industry, but the various recommendations of the committee—besides involving expenditure of large sums of money—also involve questions which require careful examination in relation to the functions of the sundry authorities concerned. On completion of the report, the Government will consider the matter in its entirety.

Sir DRUMMOND CHAPLIN:

Nothing has been done yet?

The MINISTER OF MINES AND INDUSTRIES:

No.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION. †Mr. DEANE:

I wish to make a personal explanation with regard to the debate last night, when I objected to the Minister of the Interior exceeding his forty minutes. As a result of this, the whole of the Natal members have been accused of political cowardice, and of being in collusion with me. That is not correct; they were not. I did this entirely on my own, and the reason I did it was that I considered that the forty minute rule was made to be obeyed.

HON. MEMBERS:

What about Dunean?

†Mr. DEANE:

During the debate two hon. members on either side were allowed to exceed forty minutes. The Prime Minister was—

†Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member must not argue; he can only make a personal explanation.

†Mr. DEANE:

I want to point out that it was a Natal member who moved the extension in the case of the Minister of Finance, so that I think this accusation against the Natal members is entirely uncalled for.

S.C. ON MINERS’ PHTHISIS ACT, 1925. Mr. FORDHAM:

I ask the indulgence of the House to move—

That a Select Committee be appointed to enquire into the administration and working of the Miners’ Phthisis Act, 1925, the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.
†Mr. SPEAKER:

Has the hon. member seen the Minister?

Mr. FORDHAM:

The Minister has no objection.

Mr. ALLEN:

I have an amendment to propose to this motion.

†Mr. SPEAKER:

If this motion is taken without objection, an amendment cannot be moved.

Mr. ALLEN:

Then I must object.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (TUESDAYS AND FRIDAYS). The PRIME MINISTER:

I move—

That on and after Tuesday, the 26th February, Government business have precedence on Tuesdays and Fridays after questions have been disposed of.
Mr. VERMOOTEN:

seconded.

Gen. SMUTS:

If this motion goes through in this form, the motion of my hon. friend, the member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) with regard to the payment of an additional 1s. a day to those workers at Potchefstroom during the last election, will drop, and I would suggest to the Prime Minister that it would be entirely in the interests of the country if this debate were to come on, and if an inquiry into this matter were held. There is another matter which has been raised by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) in regard to the administration of justice in the Orange Free State. I think this is also a matter which calls for a very searching inquiry. Both these matters have been raised in debate here casually, and statements have been made which should be inquired into, and I hope that the Prime Minister, if we agree to this motion standing in his name, will also agree that opportunity should be given for these matters to be raised, so that, if necessary, committees may be appointed to inquire both into the Potchefstroom case and into the case of prosecutions being withdrawn in the Orange Free State. I think there is a good deal of perturbation, to put it mildly, about these two cases. We don’t want to prevent the Government from taking fuller power over the time of the House. We know that the idea is to make a short session, and we do not want to oppose the Government having fuller command of the time of the House, although it is very early for the Government to step in. I express the hope that the, Government, even for the sake of its own reputation, will see the advisability of allowing an inquiry to be held into these two matters that I have mentioned.

Mr. MADELEY:

One certainly realizes that the object is to shorten the session, but in an ordinary session a private member has very little opportunity of bringing matters of the utmost importance before the House, and that opportunity is being severely curtailed this year. One wants to help the Prime Minister, but one must be very careful that one does not curtail too severely the opportunities of private members of bringing matters before the House. I move, as an amendment—

To omit “Tuesday, the 26th February” and to substitute “Friday, the 1st March”; and to omit “Tuesdays and”.

I suggest that the motion should apply to Fridays, leaving Tuesdays to private members.

Mr. REYBURN:

I second. There are a number of important motions on the paper, and in all probability if the motion is carried as it stands, these motions will fall away. I appeal to the Prime Minister to accept the amendment.

Mr. BLACKWELL:

With regard to my motion, if the Prime Minister is prepared to agree to an inquiry, I am prepared to move the matter quite formally, and it need not interfere with the motion he is moving now, but if he does not accede to a select committee, then I would like to support the appeal made by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). The Prime Minister may think that this question of 1s. per day increase, brought up by me, has been fully answered. That is very far from being the case. It is a very serious matter for investigation. I should like to read to the House—

†Mr. SPEAKER:

I don’t think the hon. member is entitled to discuss the matter.

Mr. BLACKWELL:

I merely want to show that there is an urgent need for that investigation. I won’t read anything. I have in my possession a circular issued by and on behalf of the National party in Potchefstroom, which quite clearly shows that the 1s. per day increase was granted on the 1st February, the very day of the election.

†Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member should not go into the matter.

Mr. BLACKWELL:

The Government has been charged—

†Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. The hon. member cannot discuss the charges which have been made on a matter which is not before the House at the present moment. The only question is whether the Prime Minister’s motion shall be accepted.

Mr. BLACKWELL:

The motion I intend moving is one of serious importance. Otherwise the implication is that Government is burking an inquiry.

†Mr. ALEXANDER:

In this very short session we recognize that it is impossible for private members to have all the time ordinarily allowed to them, but a sense of grievance arises from the fact that the motion proposes to take away the 26th instant from private members. The motions were put down for that date when it had not been intimated by Government that this day would be appropriated for Government business, and an opportunity for these motions to be debated should be given. I move, as a further amendment—

To omit “on and”.
The Rev. Mr. MULLINEUX:

seconded.

†Mr. MARWICK:

I shall be quite satisfied if the Prime Minister were to indicate that it is his intention to grant select committees to enquire into the two grave matters brought before the notice of the House by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and myself. I need not expatiate on the importance of my motion, because I have already with a full sense of responsibility made statements in regard to the conduct of the Attorney-General of the Free State which I am fully prepared to prove. I understood from the Minister of the Interior last night-—

†Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion before the House. He should not go into the merits of his motion.

†Mr. MARWICK:

I wish only to emphasize again the importance of the motion by drawing attention to a parallel case which arose in the House of Commons in 1924.

†Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member cannot go into that. He must deal with the motion before the House.

†Mr. MARWICK:

It is my wish to stand entirely within the rules, but it seems germane to point out that the incidents referred to in my motion go to the very root of the ordered state of society in any civilized country. The Prime Minister’s motion, however, will entirely preclude a discussion of the matter. There is no possibility of my proposal being reached if the Prime Minister’s motion is adopted. Since the previous discussion took place information has been pouring into my hands from every side in confirmation of what I have already stated and giving proof of further cases which I am prepared to bring forward if only the Prime Minister will give us an opportunity of establishing my case. A select committee is the only proper form, as no other investigating body can give adequate protection or indemnity to witnesses.

†Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member is again going into the merits of his motion.

†Mr. MARWICK:

I have no wish to do that.

An HON. MEMBER:

Sit down, man.

†Mr. MARWICK:

I wish to point out that the difficulties of investigating this matter through any other channel are immense.

†Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member is now again going into the motion which is not now before the House.

†Mr. MARWICK:

I am merely indicating the difficulty with which I am confronted if the Prime Minister’s motion is adopted; it will be against the public interest if these matters are not investigated. It is against the public interest that there should be an overriding motion which may preclude the discussion of the very grave matter I have brought to the notice of the House.

Mr. DUNCAN:

I hope the Government will give very serious consideration to what has been said by the hon. member for IIlovo (Mr. Marwick). As I understand the hon. member’s case, it is this, that his motion, which is on the paper, or will be on the paper, cannot possibly be brought before this House if the Government take Tuesdays as is proposed in the motion now before us. If this was a motion, for example, of no-confidence in the Government, naturally the Government would be morally bound to give time for its consideration. This motion is not an attack on the Government, at all; it is a motion alleging very grave irregularities in the conduct and administration of public justice. I submit that is a matter so important, going so deep to the root of our ordinary public administration, that the Government ought to stretch a point and ought to allow time for this motion to come on, particularly if, as I understand, the hon. member gives the undertaking that it will not be discussed but that he will simply move. It is an important matter, it is not a matter to be passed over in silence. The allegations are too serious, and if this motion is accepted, there will be no chance of their being ventilated.

†Brig.-Gen. BYRON:

My difficulty in voting for the motion is that the Prime Minister has given us no reason for it. We are not entitled to pass important motions like this on mere rumours. All sorts of rumours are going about that the session may end sooner than usual. We know nothing about that officially. All we know is it is competent for this session to last till the 25th of July next. If the Prime Minister has other views, I think he ought to communicate them to the House, and tell us why private members are being deprived of their opportunities. If the Prime Minister, of course, contemplates a very early prorogation of Parliament, surely it is a courtesy due to the House that we should be so informed. We do not want to embarrass him in any way, but we are certainly entitled to be given some idea of the length of this session, before consenting to pass a motion of this sort. I hope that information will be forthcoming. I think it is due to the House and due to the country.

Mr. CLOSE:

I would also like to support the suggestion made by the right hon. the member for Standerton. Two very serious matters are involved, and perhaps if there is any difference in importance, the greater importance might be attached to the matter raised by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). There should be greater facilities for inquiry into these two matters. So serious is the matter raised by the hon. member for Illovo, that I should have thought the Prime Minister would have been only too glad to have seen that the doubts raised by the serious statements of the hon. member should not exist in the mind of the country one moment longer than necessary. I understood from the Minister of the Interior last night that he would not deal with the matters raised by the hon. member for Illovo, because the House would have ample opportunity under the hon. member’s motion. That is why we do think that particular motion should receive precedence. There is another point. Unless that inquiry is proceeded with at once, it may be too late this session, because unfortunately the Minister of Justice, who actually had charge, will probably be away from the country. The investigation ought to be put forward on its merits as quickly as possible, and should be put through now so that we may have the benefit of the views of the Minister before he leaves the country.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

I am very sorry that I cannot agree to the request. It must be very clear to everybody what our position is, namely, that, as was stated at the commencement of the session in the Governor-General’s speech, we have really only met to take the necessary steps to consider the Native Bills, and when that has been done, to continue with the budget, in order thereafter to go to the country. We only have till the end of March for the financial measures. The financial business must be completed. As regards the adjournment, I hope that in no circumstances will it be necessary to have it later than the 10th or 12th April, for the work which we practically met to do we urgently need every day, and to come now and ask that time should be given for the various motions on the paper surely goes a little too far.

Mr. CLOSE:

Do you agree to a select committee instead?

Mr. NICHOLLS:

Are you afraid of a select committee?

*The PRIME MINISTER:

We have no time for that, and the richest of all is that certain things are now advocated as if they had to be disposed of during the next few days or during the session. If it is as some of my friends opposite think, then I would certainly say that it could be done, but then I also say that the thing will not run away. They are not matters which arose yesterday, and either we shall come back, or the Opposition will come into power, and then time can be made to go into the matter. Do hon. members really think with regard to the motion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that I am going to waste public money on an enquiry into such frivolous accusations? Every one knows that they are nothing else than the kind of grievances which are brought up every year, whether they advance certain interests or not. The things either mean something or nothing. If they mean nothing, we leave them alone; if they mean anything the time will come to institute a proper enquiry. In a few days the Minister of Finance will have to start on his proposals, and we require all the time.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander put and negatived.

Question put: That the words “Tuesday, the 26th February” and “Tuesdays and”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—57.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Oost, H.

Pienaar, J. J.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reitz, H.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sampson, H. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Mullineux, J.; Pienaar, B. J.

Noes—51.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Ballantine, E.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Collins, W. R.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gibaud, F.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Kentridge, M.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Miller, A. M.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reyburn, G.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Robinson, C. P.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R, H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Tellers: de Jager, A. L.; Hay, G. A.

Question accordingly affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Madeley dropped.

Original motion then put and agreed to.

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS ACT, 1917, FURTHER AMENDMENT BILL.

Leave was granted to Mr. J. J. Pienaar to introduce the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1917, Further Amendment Bill.

Bill brought up and read a first time; second reading on 22nd February.

PETITION S. A. VAN LINGEN. Mr. BROWN:

I move, as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

That the petition from S. A. van Lingen, in his capacity as Chairman of the Rand Water Board, in opposition to the Rand Mines Power Supply Company Additional Water Supply (Private) Bill, presented to this House on the 7th February, 1929, be referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.
Mr. STRACHAN:

seconded.

Agreed to.

PETITION H. SOLOMON AND OTHERS. Sir ERNEST OPPENHEIMER:

I move, as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice— That the petition from H. Solomon, B. Cohen and A. J. Beet, Mayor, Deputy-Mayor and Acting Town Clerk of the Municipality of Kimberley, respectively, in opposition to the Rand Mines Power Supply Company Additional Water Supply (Private) Bill, presented to this House on the 7th February, 1929, be referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.

Col. Sir DAVID HARRIS:

seconded.

Agreed to.

WOMEN’S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL, 1927. Brig.-Gen. BYRON:

I move—

That, in terms of Standing Order No. 180, the Women’s Enfranchisement Bill, 1927, which lapsed by reason of the prorogation of the last session of Parliament, be proceeded with during the present session at the stage which it had reached during last session.
Col. Sir DAVID HARRIS:

seconded.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—47.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Collins, W. R.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gibaud, F.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Kentridge, M.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Miller, A. M.

Moffat, L.

Nel, O. R.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reyburn, G.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Robinson, C. P.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Tellers: de Jager, A. L.; Hay, G. A.

Noes—58.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boy dell, T.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Oost, H.

Pienaar, J. J.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vermooten, 0. S.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Mullineux, J.; Pienaar, B. J.

Motion accordingly negatived.

FARMERS AND INCOME TAN. Col.-Cdt. COLLINS:

I move—

That the Government be requested to consider the advisability of exempting from the payment of income tax incomes derived directly from farming operations.

In moving the motion standing in my name, I should perhaps apologize for again asking the House to pass a motion that was passed 16 or 17 months ago. I may say that the reason given by the Minister of Finance for not agreeing to this relief to farmers is not adequate. The Minister says that the main reason why he did not grant this exemption last year was that farmers did not want it. I dispute that. I hope hon. members who represent farming constituencies will tell the House what farmers think on the question. Farmers in my constituency are clamouring for the exemption, and I submit that they are not the worst farmers in the Union. I think they may be considered some of the best farmers in the Union. I have been instructed by resolutions passed at a series of meetings to bring this matter before the House. I may be asked: “Why the farmer; why should he be exempt?” I would have liked to have gone the whole hog, and to try to persuade this House to abolish the income tax altogether. I see the Prime Minister smiles, but I am certain that if this House were to-day to pass a resolution abolishing the income tax it would be the best work that we have done for many a long day. I am certain it would mean an increase of population. It would have the effect of attracting capital to the country, and it would bring prosperity and relieve unemployment. The extra prosperity it would bring would result in an automatic increase of revenue from other sources. I am informed that other countries are now considering the question of abolishing the income tax. I noticed in the “Star” of the 13th September last a paragraph from Ottawa stating on good authority that Mr. Mackenzie King proposed to bring forward the abolition of income tax. Substantial reductions have been made in the tax in Canada, which has always been unpopular in that dominion. The income tax was instituted in South Africa as a war measure. “The Retail Trade Review” of Canada has pointed out that the income tax has proved a hindrance to the development of that country. There are nine taxes enforced in Canada, and all, with the exception of the income tax, are levied on things which are tangible, but the income tax is entirely dependent on the honesty or dishonesty of the public. The paper shows how comparatively few people pay income tax in Canada— 11,000, only 2,600 of whom are farmers. The system invites and encourages deception as it is based on an attempt to ferret out the private affairs of each individual payer. The paper urges that no taxpayer should be compelled to make out a number of intricate forms, which very few understand, and which require skilled accountants to unravel. That is our great grievance in South Africa. A very small percentage of our farmers can fill in the income tax papers. Leading authorities on taxation agree with the conclusion arrived at by John Stuart Mill that the fairness which belongs to the income tax in theory cannot be made to attach to it in practice. The income tax is in effect more un-just than many other taxes which, prima facie, are more objectionable. Direct taxes on income should be reserved as an extraordinary step to be adopted only in emergency. Florida is the only state of the United States which has no income tax and, as a result, it has attracted capital and settlers, the European population having trebled in the last 25 years. The Irish Free State has, as an advertisement reduced its income tax from 4s. to 3s. in the pound. In Canada, in order to avoid the payment of income tax, people are taking money out of their business and putting it into war bonds which are not taxed. What a wonderful thing it would be if we could advertise that South Africa has no income tax. I shall be told that the income tax brings in between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000 a year, and I shall be asked how I propose to make up the difference. It is not my duty, however, to suggest what shall take the place of the income tax. But this argument that income tax brings in between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000 a year does not apply to farmers’ income tax. It is not nearly such a large amount. It brought in in 1927 £112,000—that is from individual farmers. From farming companies it was £18,000. If you deduct from this amount the extra amount which it costs the Government to collect it, I think the Treasury will agree that is a very large amount, and if you deduct what people write off as losses, I do not think you would get very much out of it. It seems to me that very likely it would be under £1,000. We are all agreed we should do whatever we can in this country to make farming popular. We are agreed we should do all we can to send people to the land, and I am sure this measure of exempting farmers from income tax would help very considerably. I would like the Minister not to accept this theoretical idea. Let us look at the practical side. Other countries have done this. In Canada I find that the income derived from a farm or a ranch or an orchard conducted by the farmer himself is exempt from tax. Farmers do not object to the payment of the tax. What they object to is the trouble to which they are put in having their income tax assessed. It is not too much to say it is a continual nightmare to many farmers. If we could discover what farmers pay for legal assistance to make up their forms, I wonder whether it would not be a larger amount than what the State gets from the farmers. The House will remember that when I moved this motion last time the Minister of Finance was very sympathetic, but he said on consideration that the farmers did not want it, and he quoted to us a speech made by Maj. Hunt, the president of the Agricultural Union. A letter I have here says—

When the question of the exemption of farmers from income tax was under consideration by the Assembly, the Rev. Mr. Hattingh moved an amendment that only income derived direct from agricultural operations should be exempted. The amendment was adopted because members did not realize what it really meant. Maj. Hunt went further. He said: “No intelligent, self-respecting farmer objects to paying his quota of his income tax on his own profits.” He did not realize that the rich man’s income tax is paid in a large amount by the people who borrow money from the rich man, and that a large number of the farmers in South Africa have mortgages on their farms, and except where the money comes from the Government or the Land Bank, the rate of interest is considerably higher than it would otherwise be because it includes a certain percentage to cover income tax.

I only hope that the Minister will not listen to the nonsense that farmers do not want to be exempted. I am sure on the contrary that farmers would appreciate it very much, and I am sure the country would benefit largely by making farming more popular. I hope the Minister will take that into consideration. I beg to move the motion.

*Lt.-Col. N. J. PRETORIUS:

I second the motion. As a farmer with plenty of experience of income tax it is more difficult for me to speak about the matter, because it may be said that I am speaking from self interest, but if you take the farmer in general then you can say that to a certain extent he is more heavily taxed than the ordinary town dweller. I may possibly be asked to what extent the farmer is already more heavily taxed. I shall try to show what he already pays in direct taxation. When he brings his produce to the market and wants, e.g., to sell his cattle, he has, in the first instance, to pay 5 per cent, to the Government. If then he sells his cattle on the market he must again pay 5 per cent. Therefore, if the cattle farmer wants to dispose of his cattle he has to pay 10 per cent. Hon. members will surely see that this is unfair. Further charges are the auctioneer’s fees which also must be paid so that there are already three taxes before the farmer receives his money. I take the view that that is not fair to him. I am not in favour of total abolition of taxation, if the farmer has an income from other sources than actual farming. But as we already have to pay various taxes, because we must take our produce to the market, and we must use the railway to carry it, it is only fair that the farmer should be exempted from income tax. If we take the farmer’s income and deduct the cost of sale, we may say that he certainly pays more than 25 per cent, of his income. Hon. members opposite must see it. They are always boasting of being representatives of the farmers. Our object is to throw no further burden on the farmer, but to give him a chance to develop and improve his farm. Among the farmers I know there are some, although comparatively few, who have an income of £600 or more. If they have anything over it usually goes in improvements on the farm, and at the end of the year the balance has to be paid in income tax. I think if there ever was a fair proposal in this House, then it is this motion to exempt the farmer from income tax. The difficulty of preparing the forms was referred to, but this can possibly be overcome in future, but the most important point is the fact that the farmer already pays more taxes than anyone else. I noticed that recently two prominent farmers were convicted because they had not filled up their forms properly. This often happens, because the farmer is not always well acquainted with his income and expenditure. The income comes in small amounts at different times, so that he possibly forgets an amount, and that is possibly what happens in the cases mentioned. Last year the Minister promised that he would go carefully into the question of income tax for farmers. I am sorry he is not here now, but I hope that when we discuss the matter again he will then be present, and will submit a scheme to the House by which the farmer will be exempted from income tax. I hope the Minister will then be supported by the House, and if he cannot accept the motion, I hope he will make a statement that he will subsequently introduce proposals into the House by which the farmer will be exempted.

†*Mr. J. H. CONRADIE:

I cannot agree with the motion of the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins), and the reasons he gave were not at all convincing to my mind. One of the reasons he quoted from the pamphlet was that there was a great possibility of farmers escaping, and that the collection of the income tax depended entirely on the personal honesty or dishonesty of the farmers. If it is actually a fact that the farmers can so easily avoid the payment of income tax, why are we complaining so much against it? The hon. member says that the Minister of Finance instituted an enquiry, and that he subsequently said, by virtue of a resolution of the Agricultural Union, that the farmers were not in favour of the abolition of the income tax for farmers. This proves that the farmers are divided on the subject. I have myself met farmers who are opposed to the abolition, and who consider the tax a just one, because the incidence is according to a man’s income. I have met other farmers who support abolition, but I am certain that the greatest opposition to the income tax arises because of the difficulty of completing the form. The farmer is shy of the complicated form, and from the time it reaches the farm he no longer sleeps comfortably, because the filling-in of it is such a nightmare to him. Ultimately, he has to go to the village to consult an attorney, and thereafter he is still worried for another two months because the officials may possibly find some amount or other which he has left out in ignorance. If we could act in a different way by instructing the magistrates, magistrates’ clerks, and the police to assist the farmer gratis in filling in the form, the objection would, to a great extent, fall away. If the hon. member had moved that the farmer should be entitled to deduct the interest on bonds, it would have been a practical proposal.

*Col.-Cdt. COLLINS:

The farmers can already do that.

†*Mr. J. H. CONRADIE:

If the hon. member will move that the expenditure on all permanent improvements on the farm may tie deducted, it will also be acceptable, but I do not think the farmers will be in favour of general exemption. In this motion I see the cloven hoof of the old Unionists, namely, a land tax. If the farmers are exempted from income tax it will soon lead to an agitation among the shopkeepers, attorneys and other town dwellers, and they will then unanimously urge a land tax.

*Col.-Cdt. COLLINS:

That is a bogey.

†*Mr. J. H. CONRADIE:

No, the bogey exists, and the hon. member is merely trying to cover it up. In connection with land tax, we must remember that, in the case of drought-stricken districts like Laingsburg, Prince Albert and the Bushmansland, and in the case of droughts a land tax will become an intolerable burden. Moreover a land tax is unjust, because it is levied on the capital of the farmer. Actually the income tax does not press so heavily because there is a preliminary exemption of £400, and with a normal family of four to five children the exemption easily mounts up to £700. It must be a fairly strong farmer who has a profit of £700 a year. According to the quotation which the mover read out, it is said that in Canada there is a great amount of evasion among the farmers, and if we examine the return of the Union Commissioner of Inland Revenue, we are astonished at the insignificant amount the farmers pay. Evasion is, however, not the reason for the small amount, but the fact that farming in South Africa is not a paying occupation. If this is so, then I cannot see the terrible pressure of the income tax on our farming population. In the district of Kenhardt, e.g., the inhabitants only pay £1,500, excluding officials and other town dwellers, and if the income tax of the officials and professional clerks is deducted, then there are only a few farmers who pay income tax.

Mr. G. C. VAN HEERDEN:

If the effect of this motion will be to encourage the investing of capital for the development of agriculture, then there is a lot to be said for it. We have had other policies in regard to our industrial development, and we are levying taxes in order to build up our industries. On the other hand there would be something better than what has been suggested, namely, to encourage farmers where they have carried out permanent improvements on their farms, the money so expended should not be reckoned for income tax purposes. Hon. members will probably remember an amendment which I moved last year in this connection. That is what I feel will be a more effective instrument than that intended by the motion before the House. If it is intended by this motion that a farmer shall not pay income tax simply because he is a farmer, then I am entirely against it. On the contrary, if the object of the motion is to encourage the investment of capital in our agricultural industry, then I will support it. I wish to move an amendment which, I think, will be more effective in the direction I have indicated. The Minister complained last year that he had not been given sufficient time to include this proposal in his budget. The amendment I wish to move is as follows—

To omit all the words after “advisability of”, and to substitute “amending the law relating to the taxation of incomes in order to enable farmers to deduct, for the purpose of determining their taxable income, all amounts spent by them in effecting permanent improvements necessary for carrying on their farming operations.”

There are many cases where farmers are spending money upon the permanent improvement of their farms, but they are not entitled to deduct that as ordinary farm expenditure. Many farmers are spending enormous sums in connection with soil erosion, and in the Eastern Province large sums of money have been spent upon the erection of fences. By doing this the farmers are not only rendering a service to themselves, but also to the country. There are various circumstances which place the farmer in the position of being unable to reckon the amount of his expenditure on his ordinary farming operations. I am strongly in favour of the change being brought about. Several years ago I begged the Minister to exempt expenditure from income tax which is in the nature of capital expenditure, and the Minister was kind enough to allow the deduction of sums spent on boreholes to procure water for domestic supply. Seeing that the Government has already conceded that that is capital expenditure, I don’t see why any expenditure on permanent improvements should not be exempted. The man who is actually spending his profits in improving his farm should be exempted from taxation on such expenditure.

*Mr. STEYTLER:

I second the amendment. Hon. members opposite seem surprised but they have not a monopoly of farming. Here we are all farmers, and I can say that I was the first to move a similar proposal to the amendment now under discussion. On my initiative last year there was a debate in the House on the subject. I am therefore glad that the matter has been raised. A few years ago the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) also proposed that the farmers should be entirely exempted, and I supported it. I think the only one against it was the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger).

*Mr. SEPHTON:

And I.

*Mr. STEYTLER:

The majority in any case was in favour of it, and the Minister promised to consider it favourably. It was then found that the farmers were divided on the matter of total exemption. I think in my district a large majority were in favour of it, but other prominent and progressive farmers said that the income tax was a just tax, and they did not want other sections to be in a position to say that the farmers contributed nothing towards the government of the country. I think that we must admit that there is a good deal in the argument. I have the same amendment as the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden), and wanted to introduce it, namely that improvements of a permanent nature on farms should be exempt from income tax. Our experience is that even progressive farmers never have cash on farms, and all their profits are put back for improving the farm, which is to the advantage of the whole country. I think the Government will render the farmers a service by accepting this amendment. It was said here that it is difficult to complete the form. I know what my difficulty is although I went a little higher than Standard 2. How much greater will the difficulty not be for the thousands of farmers who have not had the educational privileges which I have had. If the form can be simplified the farmers will greatly appreciate it. I also have always farmed in the old way. I count my cattle and sheep and know how matters stand. I never keep books, and the large majority of farmers do not do so. Now, however, our sons are going to farm, and if they have to fill in income tax forms every year it will teach them to keep books and to run their farming more on business lines than their parents did. There are therefore pros and cons in the matter, and I think that it would be better in future to let the income tax remain. If only the form can be simplified a little it will be a good thing. Along with the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) I am also afraid that if the income tax disappears a land tax will be imposed. I think that such a thing was already suggested under the last Government.

*An HON. MEMBER:

No.

*Mr. STEYTLER:

I do not believe that I am wrong. Farmers have even told me that they would rather write out a cheque for land tax than fill up the difficult income tax form.

*Mr. KRIGE:

You are thinking of the motion of the late Mr. Merriman.

*Mr. STEYTLER:

I think that there was an agitation to again introduce it under the last Government and I think the hon. member for Aliwal North (Mr. Sephton) knows about it. I would rather fill in the difficult form every year than get the tax abolished with the prospect of a land tax. I am scared of a land tax, and I think at any rate for the next 20 or 30 years no Government will venture to impose that tax. Farming in South Africa is very uncertain and after a few years of drought a farmer cannot pay any land tax. It would entirely ruin him. If, however, improvements are made on farms, not merely the fencing of farms, but also, e.g., the irrigation of land, they can be exempted. We know that thousands of tons of the best land are washed away, and that something must be done to prevent the erosion, which I also consider a permanent improvement. Then there are millions of morgen of land covered with weeds like prickly pear, jointed cactus and other rubbish. It costs the farmer thousands of pounds to clean the farm, and it will be a good thing if this can also be deducted from the tax as a permanent improvement.

*Mr. KRIGE:

I congratulate the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) on having seconded the amendment. I just rose to do so because it is the custom for an amendment coming from one side to be seconded from someone from the same side. I am however glad at the attitude of the hon. member, because it is on these economic matters on which we agree with hon. members opposite that we must stand together. They are not party matters and we must stand together in the interests of farming. The hon. member for Albert is afraid of a land tax, so am I. We have land taxation for local purposes, but I do not believe the central Government would succeed in passing a land tax through Parliament. If hon. members opposite are really against a land tax they must separate themselves from their friends on the cross-benches. It was said here that the farmer can evade the tax in filling in the form. It is however impossible to evade it, even if that charge is always laid against the farmer. I must say I am dissatisfied at the weak support of the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie), he even critized the motion. I thought that he, as a representative of a farming constituency would speak more strongly in favour of it. Hon. members say that the farmers can evade the tax, but I want to instance the grain farmer. Every merchant is obliged annually to hand in a list to the magistrate of the names of persons to whom, and the amount of corn, he has sold. If then the farmer leaves out any amount he is immediately pulled up by the magistrate who says: you have left out that amount delivered to the merchant. It is therefore impossible in practice. We must get away from that idea prevailing in the towns that the farmer can evade the tax. Throughout the world the farmer is treated differently in respect of income tax from the ordinary income tax payer. I think our country is the only one where the farmer is treated the same as other tax payers. Other countries admit that farming is subject to many difficulties and all countries agree that it is necessary to encourage farming. We must adopt that method also in South Africa, that a distinction must be made between the farmer and other business or professional men. I think myself that it is impossible for the Government to introduce a Bill to exempt the farmers completely from the income tax. I think it is unpracticle, and will rouse an unsympathetic feeling towards the farmer, but I think we can freely support the motion as introduced, with the amendment of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden). As an example that something ought to be done I want to mention dams. Our farmers’ farms are usually divided into sheep and grain farming. The farmer must pay about £100 a year for every shepherd, including food and lodging, etc A large sheep farmer has therefore to spend about £300 for the various shepherds. According to the existing law he may deduct those wages in filling in the income tax form, but as soon as the farmer makes permanent improvements on his farm, for instance enclosures, and dams, and to provide adequate water for the cattle everywhere, then of course the herding by shepherds is unnecessary, but then also the deduction of the shepherds’ salaries disappears. Now we say that it would only be fair for the farmer to” be allowed to deduct an amount for such permanent improvements. I think we must leave it to the Government to make such alterations, so that the farmer shall be recompensed for hie permanent improvements. I think however that the House should pass the motion of the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) with the amendment of the hon. member for Cradock.

†*Mr. VOSLOO:

I am glad to see the interest the House takes in farming matters, and hope it is not because members think that farmers do not pay enough income tax. In connection with this subject we must remember that the farming population only pays about £112,000 in income tax out of the total amount of between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000, which shows that there is something wrong with the great agricultural industry. I should like to know how many farmers receive and fill up forms, and how many pay income tax. I think that the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) has gone completely off the rails with his motion at this stage, because some time ago he introduced the same motion, and the House practically unanimously passed it after the Minister of Finance had accepted it. We had the greatest expectation that our desire would be realised, but unfortunately the head committee of the Agricultural Union to wit, Maj. Hunt and Mr. Hopley, without consulting the farmers, said that the farmers were not in favour of their being exempted from the tax. Recently I have remarked that politics are coming into the Agricultural Union, because the native question has already been introduced. I deplore it. From the debates at the agricultural congresses, and also at the Nationalist party congress, it appears to me as if the farmers do not agree on the subject, and that many of them do not mind paying a certain tax. They feel however that the income tax form gives altogether too much trouble. Farming differs from trading, and there is expenditure which you do not have in other businesses, and which cannot be deducted from revenue for income tax purposes. If a farmer e.g., plants 5,000 orange trees, then he cannot deduct the cost of purchase, but as soon as the trees begin to yield revenue the State comes in to tax the income. We feel that our income tax is put on the wrong basis. It was introduced before Union by Mr. Merriman in the Cape, and he laid down that when a farmer’s income exceeded a certain amount he was to pay a certain sum. It was therefore not necessary to make a complicated return. At the commencement of Union the income tax was abolished, but it was not long before it was re-introduced. Then there was a shout that the farmers did not pay enough, and this led to the appointment of a commission consisting of Sir Willem van Hulsteyn, Sir Ernest Chappell, and Mr. P. W. Michau. The first two did not know much about farming, and when I had the honour of giving evidence before the commission I felt at once that they and the permanent officials were not sympathetically disposed towards the farmers. We cannot blame ourselves for not making greater attempts to make the commission understand the farmers’ standpoint. I watched the acts of the commission from place to place as far as possible, everywhere leading farmers had to be appointed to give evidence. On the other hand we found that attorneys and mayors were the first to do so. The commission issued its report and recommended that farmers should also pay on the increase of their stock—on lambs and calves—and the South African party Government acted on the recommendation. The present Government subsequently met the farmers by providing that they could chose between the stock and the cash basis, but that is far from solving the difficulty. When I consider the complicated forms, and how much money goes into the attorneys’ pockets for the completion of them, then I object to the present system. I asked the Government, which is sympathetic towards the farming population to appoint a commission to make enquiries. The Government which removes the income tax from the farmers will certainly be the most popular Government South Africa has ever had.

†*Lt.-Col. H. S. GROBLER:

I only want to say a few words to support heartily the motion, and I know that I am speaking on behalf of my constituents. Their position is very difficult as regards income tax. When a farmer only has one kind of produce the difficulty is not so great, but in the Transvaal we have mixed farming, a farmer has cattle, sheep, horses, mealies, potatoes, forage, beans, fowls, sheep skins, etc. It is impossible for such a farmer to constantly keep books on all these matters. To-day someone buys one pound’s worth of something from him, and to-morrow of something else. He cannot enter it all up, and the poor fellow thereby gets into trouble. Hence the farmers feel the burden of the income tax. They are prepared to pay a tax, but want to be rid of the difficulties. It must be made easy for the farmer to exist, otherwise farming will diminish. I have even met people who said that if the farming business was meddled with they would give it up. There are people who do not like compulsory cooperation and similar things, but want to be free to do with their produce what they like. Hon. members opposite must however beware of their friends on the cross-benches.

Mr. REYBURN:

I move as a further amendment—

To omit all the words after “income tax” and to substitute “all incomes under £500 per annum.”

The farmers are not the only community in the country. There are people who live in the towns who contribute to the wealth of South Africa, and they should be exempted too. I am sympathetic with the claims of the farmers in this respect, but I do not see why they alone should be picked out and given special treatment over other classes of the community who deserves similar treatment. In the towns, I know, costs are very much higher than in the country, and people have to pay very much more for the necessaries of life than they have to do on the farms. If any exemptions are made they should also apply to people in the towns. The Minister of Finance, according to rumour, is going to make a permanent reduction of 20 per cent, in the income tax. I want to suggest, from the Labour party point of view, that that is giving too much to the wealthy and too little to the poor—too little to the man who is hard-pressed and too much to the man who is not hard-pressed.

Mr. BLACKWELL:

What lower paid man pays income tax to-day’

Mr. REYBURN:

The smaller professional man. All lawyers are not getting £1,000 per year. I remember the hon. pleading the case for the young lawyer. That is the man I want to help with this particular proposal, and I should be glad to get the help of the hon. member. I remember when times were good the Minister of the South African party Government gave us this exemption, and I hope the present Minister of Finance will do the same.

Mr. BATES:

I second the amendment.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

Unfortunately the Minister of Finance is not here, but I think it will be a good thing for me to say a few words. I do not know whether the farmers will gain or lose if this amendment is passed, but, if I mistake not, the exemption which the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) wants, already exists. The exemptions amount to a total of between £500 and £600. If I am right, the Minister of Finance told the House last year that this matter would receive his serious attention, and on two occasions in September and October when I was on a platform with him, he said, I think, that in preparing the budget he would consider this matter as to how far he could go with regard to the exemption of permanent improvements on farms. I have listened attentively to the feelings of the House, and I should much have liked to learn what the permanent improvements aimed at, specifically were. A number were mentioned here, but I think there are things that go a little far. The Government is giving sympathetic consideration to the matter, but I heard, e.g., about the removal of weeds. To get rid of the jointed cactus would cost millions of pounds, and I do not think that an exemption for that is practically possible. The farmers do not wish, nor ought they to, that all the burdens should be taken from their shoulders. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) may think that these are only bogeys, but I can assure him and other hon. members that the friends of the farmers must be very careful not to give a handle to the opponents—I will not say the enemies—nor to other persons who have no interest in farming, of subsequently coming down on the farmers by now conceding unreasonable exemption. As certain as I stand here, if the exemptions go too far, there will later on be persons who will protest and will want to know why the farmers should be preferred.

*Lt.-Col. H. S. GROBLER:

We do not wish to take off all taxation.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

The motion of the hon. member for Ermelo is that income tax should be completely taken off. I want to tell the farmers that if that is done they must be prepared to expect to have other taxes put in the place of that, and they must first of all decide of what nature the other tax must be which they want imposed on them. A general exemption will do the farmers no good. We know that many farmers in South Africa to-day make £10,000 a year. There are sheep farmers, for instance, although there are not so many, but certainly 100, who make £20,000 to £30,000 a year. My hon. friend shakes his head, but it is a fact. There are many sheep farmers who make £5,000 to £10,000 a year.

*Co.-Cdt.COLLINS:

£5,000 to £10,000, yes.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

Are these people to be exempted? Are even the people with £5,000 to be exempted from income tax, and I, poor devil, who get half of it, must pay £400 or £500 tax?

*Col.-Cdt. COLLINS:

He has to pay the railage.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

That sort of thing every trader and all of us have to pay. We all pay other taxes. Until recently I was a farmer. If I am perfectly honest, I must say that I am glad that I am so no longer, when I think of the form that one has to fill up every year. Undoubtedly the demands there made are so difficult that a person is kept awake at night for two or three days. We have, however, all tried to find something simpler, but have not succeeded, and so we must suffer the nuisance for a few nights. If, however, the income tax on farmers is abolished, another tax will be imposed. Which? What can it be but a land tax? We know, e.g., that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and others with him much prefer that to the system of farmers’ income tax. It will be a great burden on the farmers because there are two things which we must especially see that we attain to in South Africa, viz., (1) that the carrying capacity of farming is increased, and (2) that its powers of production are improved. If the carrying capacity and productivity of our land can be increased, then we can make something of South Africa. It is just the uncertainty of our agriculture—the great means of existence of our population— which induces us to take action. Consequently I advocate that the farmers should in the case of permanent improvements on his farm be permitted to deduct them in filling in his forms. If we do not do so then we practically prevent farmers from making improvements. This fact must be borne in mind. For this reason I want to ask the mover not to press his motion. I know he does not intend to bring another burden on to the back of the farming population, and I am glad the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) said that we must regard the matter from the standpoint of the interests of our agriculture. As leader of the Government I say that we are quite prepared to consider meeting the farmers so far as permanent improvements are concerned. I hope that before the end of the present session a statement will be made as to our proposals. I am therefore prepared to support the amendment of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden).

†Mr. SPEAKER:

With regard to the amendment, a similar motion was introduced last year, when a number of amendments were handed in seeking to extend the scope of the motion to people other than farmers. The object of the motion now before the House is to give relief to farmers from income tax, and the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) would extend exemption to other sections of the community. That extends the scope of the original motion in a way which is not permissible. I therefore rule the amendment of the hon. member out of order.

Mr. MADELEY:

Are we to understand that the effect of my hon. trend’s amendment is to cut out farmers from participation in the general improvement?

†Mr. SPEAKER:

The purport of the amendment is to extend benefit not only to farmers, but to all other members of the community.

Mr. MADELEY:

You may have possibly overlooked the point that whilst my hon. friend wishes to extend, he does not wish to vitiate the original motion. My hon. friend still retains farmers as part of the general community, and he improves their lot by equally advancing the limit of exemption in their case with the rest of the community. I suggest that an amendment of this character is germane to the question, because it does not cut out the farmers.

†Mr. SPEAKER:

I will read the ruling which I gave last year—

Before calling upon the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) to move the motion standing in his name, I wish to state that a number of amendments to this motion were handed in yesterday, the object of which was to extend the scope of the motion to members of Parliament and Ministers of the Crown, railway servants, chemists and druggists, printers and printing operations, journalists and authors, widows and orphans, building workers, and mine workers. I am of opinion that these amendments are not relevant to the motion, which is confined to the relief of farmers and farming operations, and for that reason they do not appear on the Order Paper.
Mr. MADELEY:

If I may, with all respect, argue further—

†Mr. SPEAKER:

I have given my ruling. It cannot be further argued.

Mr. MADELEY:

May I submit for your consideration a further point? All those amendments moved on a former occasion purporting to extend the operation of the original motion confine themselves to specific portions of the community, but my hon. friend’s amendment still has reference to the farmers.

†Mr. SPEAKER:

I have considered that point, and the principle appears to be exactly the same. The amendment has been ruled out of order.

Mr. MADELEY:

Are we to understand that when a motion is moved in the House, that the scope of that motion may not be extended by an amendment?

†Mr. SPEAKER:

I am afraid the hon. member is now putting a hypothetical question. Each case must stand on its merits.

*Mr. LE ROUX:

I think the farmer in the country will be glad that hon. members on both sides are so anxious to protect the interests of the farmers. They are so anxious that they are quite inconsistent. When this motion was introduced last year by the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) the House, by a majority, decided to pass it. To-day they have apparently changed their minds. On that occasion I charged the hon. member for Ermelo with not being serious in his motion, or that he had an ulterior purpose, and the insinuation was very much resented. I do not want to make the same insinuation again, but both sides of the House were a little hasty at that time, in passing the motion, in their anxiety to show how they were protecting the interests of the farmer. I cannot help thinking that they did it then to deprive the other side of the credit, and to show that they are the protectors of the farmers. I think that the farmers outside who have shown that they do not agree with the motion of the hon. member intended to show the country that they quite fully appreciated their duties as citizens. They said that whatever Parliament might decide they refused to be excluded as spoilt children who might not contribute to the costs of governing the country. In that way the farmers showed that they not only appreciated their duties, but that their moral sentiment was very high. I am proud of that attitude. The fact was complained of that the Minister of Finance listened to the farmers, who did not want to be exempted, but who wanted certain exemptions by which the farmer could better overcome the uncertainty of farming. It appears that the motion and the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden), to wit that permanent improvements can be regarded as farming expenses, will apparently be supported by the majority in the House. I think that the farmer actually holds the view now represented in the amendment of the hon. member for Cradock, because what will be the result if we pass the motion as moved by the hon. member for Ermelo? I believe the farmer understands what will happen then. An hon. member has already said that if the farmer is exempted from the income tax then it is quite possible that some day or other another tax will be imposed. We know how the farmers have already been singled out, as for instance in the tobacco tax, which the present Government has repealed. If the income tax is repealed, that tax will possibly be reintroduced. The estate duty presses heavily on the farmers, and relief could rather be given in that direction. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) said here this afternoon that he is afraid that if we remove the income tax, that if we were afraid of a land tax, we must get rid of our friends on the cross-benches, but I want to ask him whether it was not the old Unionists, the people with whom they amalgamated, who favoured the land tax. What does the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) say? Is he not a supporter of it, and is not the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) a strong supporter of a land tax? I think that if with regard to the land tax we ought to be afraid of anything, then it is of the old Unionists who have got the mastery over hon. members. As for the Labour party, they take up a better attitude with regard to the land tax than do the Unionists. They took up the position that unimproved ground and that absent owners must be taxed. They never took up an attitude as the old Unionists did. We say that if the income tax of the farmer is removed it will possibly be the cause of other taxes being laid on the farmer, which will hit him more heavily. That is the possibility the farmers fear. A resolution was passed by hon. members opposite at their congress in Bloemfontein on the lines of this motion, and they therefore decided to include it in their programme.

*Mr. GELDENHUYS:

No, that is not correct, read the amendment which was passed there.

*Mr. LE ROUX:

If that is so, I withdraw my statement. It is further shown that there are still hon. members opposite who do not wish to expose the farmer to dangers that may arise. I think the farmer is sensible if he tries to prevent his being treated in a way which is not only unfair to other tax payers, but which has a latent danger for him. Let us think of the results of the exemption. As the Prime Minister has said, there are farmers with incomes of from £15,000 to £20,000 a year, and who, according to the motion, would be exempt. Their foremen, who possibly receive a salary of £600 will, however, have to pay. How can you allow that? No, I am glad that the farmers appreciate that there is a general administration of the country from which they also get benefits. Another danger connected with the abolition of the farmers’ income tax is that members like the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) will then advocate that the Agriculture Vote should be reduced, and that less should be spent on the eradication of scab and locusts. The wool farmers are prosperous to-day, but there remain the dairy, grain and tobacco farmers who have special interests, and need special support from the State. If the farmers are not exempted from income tax, they will be free to urge the Government to look after their interests. I want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Cradock, and express my pleasure that there has been a revolution in the House and that hon. members only want the exemption of farmers in respect of” permanent improvements.

Mr. MADELEY:

May I move as a further amendment, Mr. Speaker, which I hope will meet with your approval—

After “incomes” to insert “below £500.”

My object is that while one feels deeply with all the difficulties farmers have to undergo in the ordinary course of their farming operations, we cannot lost sight of the fact that there are some who are making considerable incomes. I have yet to learn whether a man gets his income from farming, mining or anything else, if it is a large income, that there is any justification for his being exempted from paying income tax. In contrast with the town dweller, the farmer has considerable latitude. He has all his expenditure in connection with his operations on the farm deducted before his income is rated for income tax purposes. His net income is taxed, and that applies in any case, whether it is farming, mining or business of the ordinary sort, but when the House is feeling sympathetic towards the farmer, as I do, you have to realize that the town-dweller, especially the ordinary man in the street who is earning his salary like anybody else, if he exceeds the limit of exemption, has to pay on that and is not allowed a deduction. He is taxed on the gross amount. It must not be forgotten that the farmer also lives out of his farm and the man in the town does not. If a farmer gets £500 clear of his expenses, I do say he ought to be taxed. You, Mr. Speaker, prevented us from extending the scope, and quite rightly, but I do hope I shall be allowed to limit the scope. There are those who are getting from £10,000 to £15,000 a year from farming, and I do not see why they should be exempt from income tax, whereas their very much poorer brethren in the towns, numbering thousands, have to pay that tax.

Mr. REYBURN:

I second the amendment. Although we cannot move to extend the limit of the motion,, I hope that this may lead the Minister of Finance to open his heart,

†*Mr. I. P. VAN HEERDEN:

There is not the least doubt that the motion would be unfair to other sections of the population. The hon. member laughed when it was said that the farmers make £5,000, £10,000 and £15,000 out of wool or the sale of rams or something of that kind, but it is a fact. Those people do not want to be exempted from income tax. I am in favour of an exemption from permanent improvements. I think very few hon. members know what the position is with regard to noxious weeds. It would be very important to exempt the farmers for the eradication of weeds. There is a large stretch of land in Cradock, Somerset East, Graaff-Reinet, and almost the whole of Uitenhage, which, if the plough is not soon employed and the weeds eradicated, will become entirely valueless. Think of fencing. We now see, the whole public now sees, the benefit of it, and it is in the interests of farming that there should be an exemption from income tax in respect of fencing operations. The planting of shrubs is also extremely important, and so there are other things. We know what the spineless castus does. There are, however, ridiculous improvements, as, for instance, a fence which a farmer made 10 feet high, which was totally unnecessary. Then again I heard of someone who built silos costing £150 and £200, which he could have got for £10 or £15. I am in favour of the exemption of reasonable permanent improvements, and hope that the amendment of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) will be passed.

*Mr. A. S. NAUDÉ:

I am glad that the amendment of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) is receiving so much support. This shows that here and there we can vote together. I am also glad to learn that the Prime Minister is prepared to accept it. I took some trouble the year before last to discuss this very matter with my constituents at meetings, because I felt it was coming. I was always cheered when I said that I was not entirely for removing income tax from the farmers, but that I favoured the removal of it for farm improvements. When the farmers improve their farms their income increases, and the farmer as well as the State gets the benefit. We find farmers who are in favour of income tax and other farmers who are proud that their incomes are such that they are able to pay something. But they are all unanimous that improvements as mentioned in the amendment should be exempted from the tax.

*Mr. WESSELS:

I should just like to know what the Minister of Finance has to say about the amendment. There are quite a number of other things in this connection that I want to bring to the Minister’s notice and other hon. members also wish to speak. This means time, and I therefore move—

That the debate be adjourned.
Mr. P. C. DE VILLIERS:

seconded.

*Col.-Cdt. COLLINS:

I hope the hon. member will not press his motion. I am quite willing to accept the Prime Minister’s suggestion, and we can safely vote.

Mr. STRUBEN:

I have been at many farmers’ conferences, and I have never been at one in which they have been in favour of the exemption of farmers from payment of income tax, but they have all been in favour of abatements in terms of the amendment. I ask the hon. member for Bethlehem to withdraw his motion for adjournment, and let us come to a vote to-night and clear the decks of this subject for good.

*Mr. WESSELS:

With the leave of the House I withdraw my motion.

*Col.-Cdt. COLLINS:

Of course, I prefer half a loaf to no bread. I just want to point out to the Prime Minister that the farmers pay a great deal of indirect taxation, and can, therefore, be exempted from direct taxation. On a former occasion I dealt fully with this, and do not wish to repeat myself. I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden).

†Mr. SPEAKER:

The effect of the amendment of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) will be to do away with the exemption part of the motion, and if the amendment of the hon. member for Cradock be adopted, the amendment by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) will drop.

Amendment proposed by Mr. G. C. van Heerden put and agreed to and the amendment proposed by Mr. Madeley dropped.

The motion, as amended, then put and agreed to, viz.—

That the Government be requested to consider the advisability of amending the law relating to the taxation of incomes in order to enable farmers to deduct, for the purpose of determining their taxable income, all amounts spent by them in effecting permanent improvements necessary for carrying on their farming operations.

The House adjourned at 6.2 p.m.